The Petitioner, a computer engineer, proposed to continue research and work related to privacy in computing, relying on general articles about the topic of privacy in computing to support his claims.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“When we evaluate national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the alien will work.”

“we focus on "the specific endeavor that the alien proposes to undertake" and we look to evidence illustrating the "potential prospective impact" of their actual proposed work.”

“articles and other materials that are generally about privacy in computing, are the types of evidence that adequately support his claims under the nationally important portion of Dhanasar 's first prong”

“Routine or incremental contributions that merely add knowledge or other improvements to the field without broader implications are generally insufficient to satisfy Dhanasar 's prong one requirements.”

“their focus was more on the issue of whether his research through his proposed endeavor "would be known widely enough to have a broader impact rising to the level of national importance."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

• citations publications · discounted

  “the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the alien will work”

  AAO decision text
• resume experience · ignored

  “SCOPS did not make any adverse determination relating to his peer review experience under Dhanasar's first prong”

  AAO decision text

Where this case turned

• Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
• Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

Notable

The AAO devotes extensive discussion to Matter of Dhanasar's own underlying facts, distinguishing the petitioner in that case's research endeavor (found nationally important) from his teaching endeavor (found not nationally important), using this comparison as interpretive guidance. The AAO also notes the Petitioner raised a 'material change' issue and RFE-based peer-review arguments that were not the basis of SCOPS' denial, and declined to address them as improper grounds for appeal.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• Matter of Y-B-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a senior principal biostatistician, proposes to develop innovative statistical and machine-learning meth
• The Petitioner proposed to use advanced deep learning and machine learning models to create efficient, safe, and well-pe
• The Petitioner proposes to advance machine learning methods for the design and optimization of advanced metamaterials an
• The Petitioner, a postdoctoral chemist, proposed to continue developing high-performance materials and novel synthetic m
• The Petitioner proposes to design novel sensor data processing methods and machine learning algorithms for smart wearabl